674808

research-article2016
EDQXXX10.1177/0891242416674808Economic Development QuarterlyHammer and Pivo

Research and Practice

Economic Development Quarterly

The Triple Bottom Line and Sustainable

1­–12
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Economic Development Theory sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0891242416674808

and Practice edq.sagepub.com

Janet Hammer1 and Gary Pivo2

Abstract
The triple bottom line refers to economic, environmental, and social value of an investment and is related to the concept of sustainable
development. The triple bottom line is increasingly salient to economic development related disciplines, yet the topic has received
little attention within the field of economic development. This study offers three substantive responses to that gap. First, triple
bottom line economic development is introduced and defined. Second, research regarding whether and how practitioners prioritize
and engage in triple bottom line economic development is presented. Third, implications for the field are considered, including the
centrality of the concept to economic development and recommendations to advance theory and practice in this regard.

Keywords
sustainability, economic development theory, community development, state and local ED policy, sustainable economic
development, sustainable development

Overview Triple bottom line thinking is informed by and relates to

the concept of sustainable development—the premise that
The triple bottom line (TBL) refers to the social, environ- development should occur in ways that meet the needs of cur-
mental, and economic value of an investment. The concept is rent generations while maintaining conditions and opportuni-
increasingly salient to economic development related fields ties for future generations to do the same (World Commission
such as business, finance, planning, and real estate. Aspects on Environment and Development, 1987). Inherent in the
of the TBL concept are addressed in economic development definition of sustainable development are concepts of envi-
literature; however, a clear definition of TBL economic ronmental stewardship and inter- and intragenerational equity.
development is lacking. Furthermore, little research has been Efforts to define and address sustainability were born from
conducted regarding how economic development profes- the recognition that existing development patterns cannot
sionals view and practice the concept. This study addresses proceed without jeopardizing the environmental systems nec-
those gaps, paving the way for more productive engagement essary to sustain life and economies, and that significant dis-
with an important and timely topic. The study begins with an parity within and between generations is neither sustainable,
introduction to the TBL concept, defines TBL economic ethical, nor in tune with development goals.
development, explores TBL economic development in prac- Triple bottom line and sustainability concepts have gained
tice, and concludes with a consideration of implications to traction in fields related to economic development including
theory and practice. business, planning, finance, and real estate. This is evidenced
by the growing number of journals, books, professional orga-
The Triple Bottom Line Concept nizations, certifications, and conferences addressing sustain-
ability in related topics such as impact investing, responsible
The triple bottom line term was coined in the 1990s by busi- property investment, and corporate responsibility.1 As dis-
ness consultant John Elkington to describe economic, envi- cussed below, aspects of the TBL are addressed in economic
ronmental, and social value of investment that may accrue
outside a firm’s financial bottom line (Elkington, 2004). The 1
Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
TBL approach aims to more accurately value assets and lever- 2
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
age resources, so that capital is employed as efficiently and
Corresponding Author:
effectively as possible. The concept is sometimes referred to Janet Hammer, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State
as the 3Ps (people, planet, profit), triple value adding (Roberts University, Portland, OR 97207-0751, USA.
& Cohen, 2002), and blended value (Emerson, 2003). Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

2 Economic Development Quarterly 

development theory and practice; however, the concept is not include goods and services that pertain to negative impacts to
as well developed as in related fields. individuals and society (e.g., pollution clean-up, crime
enforcement, and cancer treatment can increase GDP), and
Defining Triple Bottom Line and they do not include goods and services of significant value
that are not captured in the marketplace (e.g., ecosystem ser-
Sustainable Economic Development vices, household domestic services, bartering, and sharing).
Economic development spans rural and urban contexts, Second, correlation does not equal causation; for example,
developed and emerging economies, and local, regional, and some gains in well-being may be attributable to technologi-
national scales. Regardless of the focus, economic develop- cal advances and policy agendas rather than economic
ment is traditionally defined in terms of wealth creation mea- growth. Third, economic growth can occur with little or no
sured in terms such as jobs, per capita income, tax base, and net benefit to workers or communities. For example, wages
gross domestic product (GDP) (Blakely & Bradshaw, 2002; and benefits may not be sufficient to meet employees’ basic
Koven & Lyons, 2010). The terms economic development needs, and projects that generate economic growth can
and economic growth are often used interchangeably; how- impose negative costs to communities.
ever, distinctions between the two have been made for Distinctions between economic growth and economic
decades and are essential to the concept of TBL economic development also emerged with increased awareness about
development (Arndt, 1987; Blakely & Leigh, 2010; threats to the natural resource base necessary to sustain econ-
Felsenstein, 2001; Flammang, 1979; Greenwood & Holt, omies. Referred to as ecosystem services, natural resources
2010; Shaffer, Deller, & Marcouiller, 2006). provide a number of functions that have significant economic
When distinctions are made between economic growth value. These include provisioning (resources such as water
and economic development, the former generally refers to a or food are provided), regulation (resources provide safety or
change in the size of the economy, whereas the latter refers balance such as flood control or oxygen), supporting
either to a change in the structure of the economy facilitative (resources provide assistance such as pollination), and cul-
of economic growth or a qualitative improvement in societal tural (resources provide aesthetic, historic, and other cultural
conditions stemming from economic activity. Conflation of benefits) (Alcamo et al., 2003). The full value of ecosystem
the terms has roots in the belief that structural economic services has not been, and likely cannot be, calculated; how-
development is a precursor to economic growth, as well as ever, scientific inquiry is contributing to our understanding.
the belief that economic growth is a precursor to improved For example, a pioneering study estimates total global value
well-being (development). However, the premise of inextri- at $125 to $145 trillion (U.S. dollars) per year (Costanza
cable positive links between growth and development has et al., 2014). In another example, an analysis synthesizing
been the subject of much debate. As detailed below, ques- data from more than 300 reports found that estimates of
tions relating to growth and development primarily fall into value per hectare per year standardized to international rates
three related but distinct categories: those that consider the range from $490 per year for an “average” hectare of open
relationship between economic growth and human well- oceans to nearly $350,000 per year for an “average” hectare
being, those that consider the role of natural capital in sus- of coral reefs (de Groot et al., 2012). In economic terms, bet-
taining economies, and those that consider the process by ter accounting of ecosystem value is important to achieve
which economic development occurs. efficient allocation of resources.
Questions regarding the contribution of economic perfor- Investigations into the process and efficacy of economic
mance to human well-being are the subject of significant development have also brought attention to the interplay of
research and debate (Diener, Helliwell, & Kahneman, 2010; social and environmental factors in economic development.
Easterlin & Angelescu, 2012; Sacks, Stevenson, & Wolfers, This includes, for example, research on such topics as quality
2010; Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009a, 2009b). Sources of of life and placemaking (Fiori et al., 2015; Florida, 2014;
debate include differences in definition and measurement Wlodarczak, 2012), equitable development (Bennett &
(e.g., measuring well-being in terms such as economic wel- Giloth 2007; Benner & Pastor, 2014; Krumholz, 1991), early
fare, life span, standard of living, life satisfaction, or happi- childhood development (Bartik, 2011; Jenkins 2014), social
ness), as well as varying interpretations of evidence and capital (Casey, 2012, 2014; Oh, Lee, & Bush, 2014;
questions regarding the appropriateness of extrapolation Woolcock, 1998), incentive reform (Bartik, 2005; Osgood,
based on historical circumstances and priorities. While Opp, & Bernotsky, 2012; Peters & Fisher, 2004; Reese,
debate continues regarding the relationships between eco- 2014; Zheng & Warner, 2010), and green, energy-based, and
nomic growth and well-being, for a variety of reasons, there sustainable economic development (Carley, Lawrence,
is general agreement that economic growth is an incomplete Brown, Nourafshan, & Benami, 2011; Greenwood & Holt,
measure of development or well-being. First, traditional 2010; Harper-Anderson, 2012; Martin & Mayer, 2008; Opp
measures of economic growth such as GDP are flawed mea- & Osgood, 2013; Portney, 2003; Roberts & Cohen, 2002;
sures of economic and human well-being because they Seidman, 2011).

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

Hammer and Pivo 3

The literature contributes to our understanding of the role Literature Regarding Triple Bottom Line and
of social and environmental factors in economic develop- Sustainable Economic Development Practice
ment (e.g., resource stewardship contributions to cost sav-
ings, place-making contributions to recruitment and Research regarding how economic development practitio-
retention) and has suggested a normative stance regarding ners understand and prioritize TBL or sustainable develop-
impacts and beneficiaries of development both within and ment is sparse, though consistently identifies the population
between generations. Despite increased attention to social as having limited engagement with sustainability themes.
and environmental dimensions of economic development, Jepson (2003) surveyed 500 certified city planners and found
however, a definition of TBL or sustainable economic devel- that those who self-identify as economic developers offered
opment is lacking. Addressing that gap, we define TBL or slightly lower support for ecologically focused sustainable
sustainable economic development as programs, policies, or development activities than planners with other specializa-
activities designed to create or retain jobs and wealth in tions. Zeemering (2009) utilized Q methodology with 28
ways that contribute to environmental, social, and economic economic development officials in the nine-county San
well-being over time.2 It is distinct from economic growth or Francisco Bay Area and found that participants do not hold a
development, which may or may not contribute to overall unified conceptualization of sustainability (e.g., varying lev-
well-being including quality of life, fiscal health, resource els of emphasis on economic, environmental, and social fac-
stewardship, and resilience. This line of thinking suggests tors) and that prioritization of potential actions is influenced
that economic systems exist to serve human well-being, that somewhat by context (e.g., whether a factor is constrained in
human and economic well-being are inextricably linked to their jurisdiction or viewed as within the organization’s
environmental well-being, and thus, that human, environ- scope of responsibility). Grodach (2011) explored barriers to
mental, and economic well-being must be considered in the sustainable economic development in 15 Texas cities through
design and evaluation of economic development efforts. document analysis and interviews with economic develop-
What does this mean for practice? Just as there is not a ment officials. He found that economic development offi-
single way to engage in conventional economic develop- cials rarely mentioned TBL themes when asked to define the
ment, neither is there a single way to engage in TBL or sus- purpose of economic development, but did mention TBL
tainable economic development. Core objectives of economic themes when asked to identify important assets for economic
vitality, resource stewardship, and community well-being development (e.g., human capital, educated workforce, qual-
will be held in common, though the means to achieve those ity of life, accessibility, and regional collaboration).
objectives will vary with contextual factors such as type of Sustainability themes were viewed primarily in relation to
project, community features, and scale. Most significantly, how they may negatively impact future growth and as out-
TBL economic development necessitates new forms of side the economic developer’s control. A competitive and
accounting for impact, and a more nuanced understanding of reactive approach to development was identified as a barrier,
the interactions between economic, environmental, and along with a conventional economic development mindset
social factors. For example, green building practices may that emphasizes attention to economic growth over social
contribute to the environmental bottom line by saving energy equity and environmental protection.
and reducing toxins, while also contributing to the social bot-
tom line by reducing deleterious health impacts and to the
economic bottom line by reducing operating costs, capturing
Economic Development Practitioner Survey
market premiums, or improving employee health, retention, Our national survey of economic development professionals
or productivity. By considering social, environmental, and contributes to understanding about practitioners’ views and
economic factors, TBL, or sustainable economic develop- practice regarding TBL economic development. The survey
ment, provides a more meaningful, productive framework recruitment strategy was designed to ensure adequate repre-
for achieving and measuring economic development. sentation of diverse regions of the United States as well as
diverse types of jurisdictions (city, county, region, state),
Triple Bottom Line and Sustainable community size (rural/suburban/urban populations), and
organization type (public, private, nongovernment organiza-
Economic Development in Practice tion). The research team worked with U.S. Economic
Having defined TBL and sustainable economic develop- Development Administration (EDA) and national economic
ment, we consider whether and how the concept has been development membership organizations to reach the target
addressed in practice. Our research includes a review of the population (economic development professionals in the
literature, a national survey of economic development prac- United States), as there is no list of names or contact infor-
titioners, and a review of 18 cases of TBL economic develop- mation for this group of people. An invitation to participate
ment in practice. A summary of each is presented below, in the online survey was sent by EDA to members and sub-
followed by a synthesis of findings. scribers of the International Economic Development Council

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

4 Economic Development Quarterly 

(IEDC), National Association of Development Organizations Table 1. Respondents.

(NADO), and Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI). The
n %
survey was conducted in 2011. Anonymity was provided and
human subjects’ approvals were secured. Seniority of position  
The research team employed a number of best practices to   Elected official 4 1%
encourage survey response. These included high-level spon-   Senior level 198 53%
sorship or endorsement of the survey (distributed through  Mid-level 157 42%
respected economic development organizations), ease of sur-   Junior level 14 4%
vey administration (users tested the online survey), follow-   Entry level 4 1%
up (reminder sent), and salience or motivation (explain how Professional experience  
the survey will be useful; Miller & Salkind, 2002; Selltiz,   Less than 5 years 44 11%
  5 to 9 years 69 18%
Wrightsman, & Cook, 1976). Four-hundred and thirteen sur-
  10 to 14 years 62 16%
veys were completed, with most questions receiving 381
  15 to 19 years 54 14%
responses. Randomization of choice options was used to
  20 to 30 years 98 26%
reduce answer choice presentation bias (e.g., automatic rota-
  More than 30 years 50 13%
tion of answer choices to avoid those near the top of a list   Not applicable 6 2%
being selected more frequently than choices near the bottom Gender  
of a list).  Male 221 60%
Our analysis considered two types of volunteer bias. First,  Female 145 40%
volunteer bias may occur if respondents who care strongly Age  
about the survey subject are more likely to respond, and their   29 years or younger 14 4%
views differ from those who respond later and whose views   30 to 39 years 41 11%
may be more in line with the silent majority. We compared   40 to 49 years 88 24%
responses of early and late responders on several key survey   50 to 59 years 130 35%
questions and found no differences in their responses, sug-   60 years or older 94 26%
gesting that this form of volunteer or nonresponse bias was
not a problem in our survey. Second, volunteer bias can
occur when respondents’ answers differ according to certain are responsible for and familiar with economic development
respondent characteristics (e.g., whether they are from urban decision making. More than half (53%) of the respondents
or rural places) and the volunteer sample is not representa- have at least 15 years of experience, consistent with the
tive of the target population (e.g., overrepresents urban or responses regarding organizational position. The majority are
rural). There is no data set that makes it possible to identify 50 years or older (61%), again in keeping with the respondents’
whether the sample is representative of the target population seniority of position. Although the population distribution of
to test for potential differences; we explored whether respon- economic development practitioners by age, professional expe-
dents’ answers varied depending on characteristics about rience, and positional seniority is unknown, the respondents’
themselves, their agencies, or the area they serve (e.g., gen- profile on these characteristics is consistent with the level of
der, age, rural/urban/suburban). Where we found no such professional leadership targeted for the survey. There were
relationships, we can say that any differences that might exist more male respondents than female (60% and 40%, respec-
between the sample and the target population do not affect tively), which may or may not reflect the actual distribution of
our ability to make generalizations about the target popula- the target population. Some differences in response by gender
tion from the sample data. However, our ability to accurately were identified and are discussed in the results (see Table 1).
estimate the views of the target population from the volun- Respondents represent diverse areas of the United States,
teer sample is affected where we find that responses varied with representation from each of the six EDA regions
with population characteristics. As reported below, we iden- (Atlanta 12%, Austin 11%, Chicago 17%, Denver 17%,
tified a few of these cases in our analysis (t test, p ≤ .05). In Philadelphia 20%, Seattle 23%). No information exists
those cases, we present how the results differ among the rel- regarding the distribution of economic developers by state.
evant subgroups rather than draw conclusions from the sam- Thus, although we cannot say whether this sample is repre-
ple about the target population. In this way, we are careful to sentative of the target population, we can say that each EDA
avoid making biased conclusions about the overall target region is represented and that the higher representation of the
population. east and west coasts is logical, given the concentration of
population in those regions.
Respondents.  The majority of respondents are senior-level staff The organizational service area ranges from individual
(53%) or midlevel professionals (42%), which is in line with cities to multistate regions, and the population served ranges
our research focus on economic development practitioners who from very small (less than 10,000) to very large (more than 5

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

Hammer and Pivo 5

Table 2. Organization. Table 3. Familiarity.

Type of organization n % Familiarity with TBL term All respondents (N = 501)

 Public 165 43% Unfamiliar 25%
  Nonprofit, nongovernmental 121 32% Somewhat familiar 39%
 Quasi-public 34 9% Very familiar 36%
 Tribe 3 1%
Note. TBL = triple bottom line.
  For profit 26 7%
 Other 31 8%
Service area character   population (all U.S. economic development practitioners).
 Urban 41 11% Nearly half (48%) of the survey respondents work for agen-
 Urban/suburban 39 10% cies that serve rural or suburban/rural places. If this is less, or
 Suburban 5 1% more, than the case for the target population, then the level of
 Suburban/rural 40 11% familiarity is probably lower, or higher, than that identified by
 Rural 139 37%
the survey. Without knowing the urban/rural mix of economic
 Urban/suburban/rural 93 25%
development practitioners across the nation, it is probably
 Other 21 6%
safest to say that 25% to 48% of economic development prac-
Service area geography  
titioners are very familiar with the term, 25% to 47% are
 City/township/local 81 22%
 County 58 15%
somewhat familiar, and 17% to 28% are unfamiliar with the
  Multicounty region 120 32% term. Analyses of familiarity by agency characteristics and
 State 51 14% respondent characteristics did not identify any other signifi-
  Multistate region 35 9% cant differences between subgroups.
 Other 30 8%
Population served   Perceived Importance of Considering Triple Bottom Line. When
  Less than 10,000 45 12% asked how important it is to consider the TBL of economic
  10,000 to 24,999 24 6% development investments, nearly all the respondents (91%)
  25,000 to 49,999 27 7% reported that in their opinion it is “moderately important” or
  50,000 to 99,999 30 8% “very important” to consider the TBL of economic development
  100,000 to 199,999 50 13% investments, including nearly two thirds who view it as “very
  200,000 to 500,000 60 16% important.” While this does not reveal respondents’ views
  500,000 to 999,999 37 10% regarding how the TBL should be considered, it does reveal
  1,000,000 to 4,999,999 47 13% strong agreement regarding the importance of considering the
  5,000,000 or greater 52 14% economic, environmental, and social dimensions (see Table 5).
Consistent with other research, our survey findings identi-
fied gender differences, with females more likely to express
million). Most respondents work for public or nonprofit support for consideration of the TBL of economic develop-
agencies. Only a few respondents work for tribes, so we can- ment (Vanderleeuw, Sandovici, & Jarmon, 2011). Fifty-
not tell from this study how tribal economic development seven percent of male respondents and 77% of females think
practitioners view these issues (see Table 2). it is “very important” to consider the TBL of economic
development investments. Eighty-nine percent of males and
Familiarity With Triple Bottom Line Term.  When asked, “How 97% of females see it as either “moderately important” or
familiar are you with the term ‘triple bottom line?’” three of “very important.” We do not know if the gender mix in our
every four respondents reported that they are at least “some- sample (60% male and 40% female) differs from the mix in
what familiar” with the term (39% identified as “somewhat the target population. If there is a higher or lower proportion
familiar” and 36% as “very familiar”). However, a signifi- of men in the target population, then the overall view on the
cant difference between respondents serving urban and rural importance of TBL would likely shift. Nonetheless, it is safe
areas was identified. Generally, respondents who work for to say that the majority of economic development practitio-
agencies that serve rural communities, including those that ners think it is “very important” to consider the TBL of eco-
serve suburban/rural and urban/suburban/rural communities, nomic development investments (see Table 6).
are less familiar with the term than those who serve urban
and suburban/urban communities; 28% and 17%, respec- Perceived Value of Tools to Consider Triple Bottom Line.  The major-
tively, responded “unfamiliar” (see Tables 3 and 4). ity of respondents (57%) report that it would be “very helpful”
The differences in response by location should be consid- to have tools or processes that could help their organization
ered when using the sample to estimate the views of the target consider TBL impacts of investments and 81% think it would

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

6 Economic Development Quarterly 

Table 4.  Familiarity by Urban/Rural.

Familiarity with TBL by urban/ Urban, urban/suburban, Suburban/rural, rural Urban/suburban/

rural suburban (n = 84) (n = 176) rural (n = 92)
Unfamiliar 17% 28% 28%
Somewhat familiar 36% 47% 25%
Very familiar 48% 25% 47%

Note. TBL = triple bottom line.

Table 5. Importance. Table 7.  Need for Tools.

TBL importance All respondents (n = 380) All respondents

Usefulness of tools (n = 379)
Not at all 1%
A little 6% Not helpful—already have tools 2%
Moderately 27% Not helpful—have no interest or need 3%
Very 64% A little helpful 12%
Don’t know 2% Moderately helpful 24%
Very helpful 57%
Note. TBL = triple bottom line. No opinion/don’t know 2%

Note. TBL = triple bottom line.

Table 6.  Importance by Gender.

TBL importance by gender Male (n = 219) Female (n = 145) included an exploration of 18 cases where a TBL approach to
Not at all 1% 0% economic development was implemented. Cases were
A little 8% 1% selected to represent diverse settings (e.g., rural, urban, and
Moderately 32% 20% suburban communities), as well as diverse types of economic
Very 57% 77% development activity (e.g., industry and manufacturing,
Don’t know 2% 1% institutions and services, mixed-use development, and cul-
ture, recreation, and tourism). Selection was not meant to
Note. TBL = triple bottom line. imply endorsement or that TBL results were achieved; rather,
our purpose was to learn from a range of examples where
be either “moderately helpful” or “very helpful.” Views on this such an approach was tried.
question did not significantly differ across any of the respon- Cases were identified through the literature, web searches,
dent or agency characteristics; however, interest in TBL tools the survey of practitioners (described above), and profes-
is greater among respondents who report familiarity with the sional networks. A minimum of one interview with a lead
term (see Table 7). staff person familiar with the project was conducted per case.
A semistructured interview protocol was used, with ques-
Current Use of Triple Bottom Line Approaches.  While the majority tions addressing the basic facts of the project, accomplish-
of respondents indicate that TBL impacts of economic devel- ments, assessment methods, and lessons learned. Archival
opment should be considered, nearly three-quarters of survey documents (e.g., reports, articles) were analyzed as a com-
respondents report that they are unaware of any jurisdictions, plement to the interviews. The case research was conducted
including their own, that have systematically applied a TBL between 2011 and 2012. Human subjects’ approval was
approach to economic development decision making. This obtained and interviewees were provided an opportunity to
indicates a significant gap, particularly given long-standing review the draft report for accuracy.3
calls to better account for impact of both economic develop- Our search for cases and our interviews indicate that the
ment organizations and investments (Ammons & Morgan, concept of TBL economic development is not at all common
2011; Arena, Adams, Noyes, Rhody, & Noonan, 2008; Bartik, in practice, and that TBL language may not be used when the
2005; Felsenstein, 2001; Felsenstein, Persky, & Wiewel, 1997; concepts are employed. As one interviewee noted, “It never
Gosh et al., 2014; Musil, 2001; Reese & Fasenfest, 1999). occurred to us to connect to the double or TBL. It was very
real and authentic to our priorities—it wasn’t done with an
external audience or framework in mind.” This is consistent
Triple Bottom Line Economic Development Cases with other research indicating that TBL or sustainability prac-
To better understand what TBL economic development looks tices may be adopted without the terminology being applied
like in practice and identify lessons learned, our research (Conroy, 2006; Saha & Paterson, 2008; Zeemering, 2009).

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

Hammer and Pivo 7

As noted above, TBL strategies were employed across approach is changing with new skills and attitudes regarding
diverse settings and types of economic development activity. network development, stakeholder engagement, and multi-
Strategies ranged from green industry job creation that tar- disciplinary whole-system approaches.
geted traditionally underserved populations to the inclusion
of TBL performance measures in incentive programs. An
Discussion and Implications
example of how the three dimensions were addressed can be
found in the case of a maritime center in rural Washington. Triple bottom line and sustainable economic development
The new center promoted economic well-being by diversify- understand the purpose of economic development to be
ing revenue streams for maritime and tourism industries; improved well-being and quality of life through the creation
community well-being by providing facilities and program- of jobs and wealth, and the process of economic develop-
ming that contributed to historic preservation, placemaking, ment to include creation, expansion, retention, and recruit-
education, and cultural enrichment; and natural resource ment, of jobs and businesses through a mix of techniques.
stewardship by remediating a contaminated site, protecting These techniques include, for example, business assistance,
sensitive habitat, achieving green building certification, and workforce development, and the cultivation of networks,
purchasing green power. infrastructure, and amenities that support business develop-
Despite the diversity of settings and strategies, where ment and influence business location decisions. It adds to
TBL concepts were employed, key themes emerged. this conventional view a recognition that economic develop-
Interviewees attributed success to integrated and inclusive ment is inextricably connected to environmental and social
planning and partnership, coupled with continuous learning. factors, and that all three must be addressed for economic
From business incubators to infrastructure, participants iden- development to succeed.
tified the importance of a clearly articulated vision and plan, Our research indicates that economic development pro-
realistic assumptions and due diligence, playing from fessionals generally favor the consideration of economic,
strengths, a patient and long-term view, an ability to navigate environmental, and social dimensions when making eco-
changing conditions and respond to emerging opportunities, nomic development investments, yet few do so. A number of
and a willingness to bridge innovation with proven paths. interrelated factors may contribute to this gap. First, eco-
Furthermore, working with diverse disciplines, departments, nomic development is situated in a broader context in which
and stakeholders enhanced project design, buy-in, and understanding of and support for TBL concepts may be lim-
resources. Through collaboration, projects were able to link ited. Research in related areas of planning, administration,
and leverage ideas and resources, thus enabling greater and sustainability suggests that organizational and commu-
impact, cost sharing, and innovation for better results. One nity characteristics impeding uptake and implementation of
interviewee observed, “Collaboration will write your success TBL concepts may include insufficient capacity, a weak
or failure—particularly as resources become scarcer.” understanding of and support by key organizational and
Another key theme identified is the need for enhanced political leaders, and low socioeconomic status (Conroy,
capacity to successfully incorporate a TBL perspective into 2006; Grodach, 2011; Hammer, 2010; Hammer, Allen, &
economic development. This includes developing staff Meier, 2010; Johnson & White, 2010; Saha, 2009; Saha &
expertise to ensure understanding of core TBL concepts as Paterson, 2008; Svara, Watt, & Jang, 2013; Wang, Hawkins,
well as skills for productive engagement and partnership. Lebredo, & Berman, 2012). Second, economic development
Strategies vary with context, though best practice is defined occurs in a highly competitive environment where much of
by an attitude of mutual respect and learning, a valuing of what affects outcomes is outside the jurisdiction’s control
diverse talents and resources, and a commitment of time and and success is narrowly defined. Furthermore, TBL eco-
resources that align with the needs of the project. nomic development may be impeded by a lack of integration
Although these “lessons” may seem like common sense and coordination among various policies and programs,
good practice, there is a sense that the identified behaviors with existing programs often at odds with TBL principles,
are not necessarily standard practice though were essential and trade-offs between economic, environmental, and social
for project success. This is consistent with the literature, sug- goals assumed to be required. Finally, TBL or sustainability
gesting that collaborative systems approaches are important principles are not core to academic and professional accred-
though underutilized in economic development (Gordon, itation for economic developers, which likely translates into
2009; Innes & Booher, 1999; Roberts & Cohen, 2002; a lack of knowledge and skills to infuse TBL concepts into
Shaffer et al., 2006). In our exploration of the ways that com- practice. For example, accreditation as a Certified Economic
munities are applying a TBL perspective to economic devel- Developer or Accredited Economic Development
opment investment, we found that, although many concepts Organization does not require any coverage or proficiency
and strategies are familiar, new territory is being covered. with respect to TBL or sustainability theory or practice.
For example, while partnership and collaboration are not Furthermore, at the university level, there is no national
new to economic development, there is a sense that the accreditation for economic development

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

8 Economic Development Quarterly 

programs and thus no requirements regarding competence economic development investment with goals for economic
in TBL theory or practice. vitality, natural resource stewardship, and community well-
If the purpose of economic development is to improve being.4 The tool drew on national data sets and user-defined
well-being through the generation of jobs and wealth, then information to determine the degree of investment alignment
conventional approaches must be questioned for their contri- with these goals. For example, scores pertaining to location
bution to deleterious trends such as increasing income dispar- accessibility, relative wages, and proximity to natural resources
ity and costly development-related environmental impacts. were generated based on the project address, while scores per-
We suggest that the TBL approach is core to successful eco- taining to green building certification, community engage-
nomic development and can serve as an organizing frame- ment, or job creation were generated based on user-supplied
work for economic development programming and research. information. Version 1 of the tool was designed for location-
Reflecting on our research findings and experience in the based investments; future versions were planned for nonloca-
field, we suggest the following as important for helping to tion-based investments (e.g., a citywide conservation project
advance theory and practice of TBL economic development. or a mobile slaughterhouse) as well as non-U.S.-based invest-
ments. The tool received favorable reviews; however, uptake
was inhibited by a number of factors, including a lack of
Training and Certification incentives for use and the need for better training in TBL con-
The industry’s leading professional organization, IEDC, has cepts—two items addressed in our list of recommendations.
brought sustainability-related content to its publications and We suggest that the framework developed for the TBL Tool
programming; however, there is ample room to expand on provides a productive point of departure for further efforts to
these efforts. In particular, we recommend that TBL concepts assess TBL economic development.
be added to the core competencies required to achieve desig-
nation as a Certified Economic Developer and Accredited
Economic Development Organization. In addition, universi-
Incentives
ties offering economic development degrees, certificates, Economic developers are mostly incentivized to not consider
and concentrations should include fundamental sustainabil- the TBL. Consistent with Grodach (2011) and Roberts and
ity knowledge and skills as part of the core requirements, a Cohen (2002), our interactions with economic development
requirement in keeping with accreditation standards for plan- professionals revealed concerns that such an approach could
ning and business programs (Planning Accreditation Board hinder a project and thus work counter to the mandate and
and Association of MBAs, respectively). reward system to which they are held accountable. With
respect to the provision of economic development incen-
tives, progress is being made in the area of accountability for
Assessment development incentives;5 however, it is not clear to what
Triple bottom line assessment is an important though chal- extent incentives are being conditioned on performance with
lenging endeavor. Literature about assessment indicates that respect to TBL goals. We suggest that professional norms
ex ante assessment of impacts can be limited by a focus on regarding incentives, both the standards to which economic
avoidance of negatives rather than alignment with preferred developers are held and the design and accountability of eco-
results, extensive resources required for analysis, and poor nomic development incentives, provide clear expectations
integration into planning and decision-making context and rewards for TBL approaches.
(Cashmore, William, Morgan, Cobb, & Bond, 2004; Hertin
et al., 2009; Jay, Jones, Slinn, & Wood, 2007). A number of
Research
challenges to ex post assessment of impact have also been
identified, including long-time horizons required for analysis, The concept of TBL or sustainable economic development
resources required for data collection and analysis, and limited provides abundant opportunities for productive research.
ability to make causal attribution (Jackson, 2013; Schutte, First, we suggest extension and integration of the practitioner
2010; Searcy, 2012). Furthermore, assessment frameworks surveys regularly administered by IEDC and the International
often see a lack of uptake, particularly in the absence of incen- City County Management Association.6 Currently, each of
tives for use (Bentivegna et al., 2002; Bond, Morrison- these organizations surveys members on a range of TBL-
Saunders, & Pope, 2012; Fazili, 2010; Frame & Vale, 2006; related issues; however, the lack of uniformity for similar
Freireich & Fulton, 2009; Hammer 2010; Harji & Jackson, questions precludes analysis between groups, and an absence
2012; Hopwood, Unerman, & Fries, 2010; Jenson & Elle, of questions on key topics precludes understanding regarding
2007). The U.S. EDA’s TBL Tool sought to help meet the need important issues. Coordination of survey efforts would
for a research-based, industry-vetted, and user-friendly assess- improve understanding of differences between groups (e.g.,
ment tool. The TBL Tool was an online platform that could be mayors, managers, economic development professional) and
used to design for, assess, and communicate alignment of afford the opportunity to track changes in attitudes, priorities,

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

Hammer and Pivo 9

and actions over time. Doing so would be particularly useful Sustainable and Responsible Investment (US-SIF). A sample
for developing responses that meet practitioner needs with of reports documenting penetration of the concept into busi-
respect to TBL economic development (e.g., policies, pro- ness and investment include Haanaes et al. (2012), Harji and
grams, trainings, research). Second, there is a rich research Jackson (2012), and KPMG International (2013).
2. Technically, TBL development refers to strong environmental,
agenda associated with TBL approaches to development and
social, and economic performance, and sustainable develop-
measurement. This includes, for example, documenting
ment refers to environmental, social, and economic perfor-
impact and lessons learned, and building on and contributing mance that can endure over time. The two terms are often used
to literature in such areas as collaborative governance, adap- interchangeably and are presented so here.
tive management, social capital, equitable development, 3. Space does not permit an overview of the 18 cases; the casebook
pathways to opportunity, and sustainability assessment. is available at http://tbltool.org/files/CUPA_Casebook.pdf.
The research presented here contributes to understanding 4. The TBL Tool website includes a user’s guide with detailed
about TBL economic development, providing a standard information on method and measures (tbltool.org/files/tbl_
definition along with insight into how the concept is viewed tool_users_guide.pdf), as well as a practitioner’s guide with
and operationalized by economic development profession- a framework for considering TBL impacts (tbltool.net/files/
als. The TBL concept is identified as important by practitio- tbl_framework_practitioners_guide.pdf).
5. For example, The Pew Charitable Trust is leading an initia-
ners; however, it is not commonly integrated into practice. A
tive to improve evaluation of state economic development tax
number of factors help explain this gap, including an absence
incentives (http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/economic-
of TBL themes from education, training, and accreditation development-tax-incentives). IEDC has also published a report
programs as well as the presence of disincentives. Simply aimed at improving return on incentives (Hurwitz, 2015).
put, practitioners are generally not trained or rewarded to 6. Collaboration with other key economic development related
consider the TBL. We suggest that a TBL approach is central organizations is advised as well, when appropriate. Examples
to economic development success and recommend specific include the American Planning Association, National
actions with regard to training, incentives, assessment, and League of Cities, and National Association of Development
research that can advance theory and practice in this regard. Organizations. IEDC and the International City County
Management Association are highlighted here because they
Acknowledgments regularly survey their members on related topics.

Appreciation is given to the survey respondents, focus group par-

References
ticipants, interviewees, and project advisors who generously shared
their time and insights. Alcamo, J., Bennett, E.M. & Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(Program). (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A
Authors’ Note framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ammons, D., & Morgan, J. (2011). State-of-the-art measures in
The authors are solely responsible for the report content and
economic development. PM Magazine, 93(5), 6-10.
endorsement or approval by collaborators, funders, or their organi-
Arena, P., Adams, J. A., Noyes, K., Rhody, S., & Noonan, M.
zations is not implied. Questions and comments can be directed to
(2008). Construction grants program impact assessment report.
the corresponding author.
Volume I—Report on investigation and results. Retrieved from
https://www.inbia.org/docs/default-source/resources—related-
Declaration of Conflicting Interests links/download-construction-grants-program-impact-assess-
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect ment-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Arndt, H. W. (1987). Economic development: The history of an
idea. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Funding Bartik, T. (2005). Solving the problems of economic development
incentives. Growth and Change, 36, 139-166.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
Bartik, T. (2011). Investing in kids: Early childhood programs and
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
local economic development. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn
research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Economic
Institute for Employment Research.
Development Administration (Award Number 99-07-13871).
Benner, C., & Pastor, M. (2014), Brother, can you spare some time?
Sustaining prosperity and social inclusion in America’s metro-
Notes politan regions. Urban Studies, 52, 1339-1356.
1. A small number of examples includes Sustainability Bennett, M. J., & Giloth, R. P. (2007). Economic development in
Accounting Journal, Management and Policy Journal, Journal American cities: The pursuit of an equity agenda. Albany:
of Sustainable Real Estate, Journal of Sustainable Finance and State University of New York Press.
Investment, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Bentivegna, V., Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Lombardi, P., Mitchell,
Management Journal, Stanford Social Innovation Review, G., & Nijkamp, P. (2002). A vision and methodology for inte-
The UN Principles for Responsible Investment Initiative, The grated sustainable urban development: BEQUEST. Building
Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN), and the Forum for Research & Information, 30(2), 83-94.

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

10 Economic Development Quarterly 

Blakely, E. J., & Bradshaw, T. K. (2002). Planning local economic Felsenstein, D., Persky, J., & Wiewel, W. (1997). Integrating hard-
development: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, to-measure externalities into the evaluation of local economic
CA: Sage. development projects. Town Planning Review, 68(1), 55-79.
Blakely, E. J., & Leigh, N. G. (2010). Planning local economic Fiori, A. M., Niehm, L. S., Hurst, J. L., Son, J., Sadachar, A.,
development: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Russell, D. W., Swenson, D., & Seeger, C. (2015). Will
CA: Sage. they stay or will they go? Community features important in
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2012). Sustainability migration decisions of recent university graduates. Economic
assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Development Quarterly, 29, 23-37.
Appraisal, 30(1), 53-62. Flammang, R. (1979). Economic growth and economic develop-
Carley, S., Lawrence, S., Brown, A., Nourafshan, A., & Benami, ment: Counterparts or competitors? Economic Development
E. (2011). Energy-based economic development. Renewable & and Cultural Change, 28(1), 47-61.
Sustainable Energy Review, 15, 282-295. Florida, R. (2014). The creative class and economic development.
Casey, C. (2012). Low-wealth minority enterprises and access to Economic Development Quarterly, 28, 196-205.
financial resources for start-up activities: Do connections mat- Frame, B., & Vale, R. (2006). Increasing uptake of low impact
ter? Economic Development Quarterly, 26, 252-266. urban design and development: The role of sustainability
Casey, C. (2014). Critical connections: The importance of commu- assessment systems. Local Environment, 11, 287-306.
nity-based organizations and social capital to credit access for Freireich, J., & Fulton, K. (2009). Investing for social and environ-
low-wealth entrepreneurs. Urban Affairs Review, 50, 366-390. mental impact: A design for catalyzing an emerging industry.
Cashmore, M., William, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D., & Bond, A. San Francisco, CA: Monitor Institute.
(2004). The interminable issue of effectiveness: Substantive Gordon, V. (2009). Perceptions of regional economic develop-
purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advance- ment: Can win-lose become win-win? Economic Development
ment of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Quarterly, 23, 317-328.
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22, 295-310. Gosh, S., Chen, J., Chafetz, A., Clogston, F., Parkins, M., Pecorelli, K.,
Conroy, M. (2006). Moving the middle ahead: Challenges and & Libby, T. (2014). Making it count: Metrics for high perform-
opportunities of sustainability in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. ing EDOs. Washington, DC: Economic Development Research
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 18-27. Partners—International Economic Development Council.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, Greenwood, D., & Holt, R. (2010). Local economic development
S., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014). in the 21st century: Quality of life and sustainability. Armonk,
Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Environmental Change, 26, 152-158. Grodach, C. (2011). Barriers to sustainable economic development:
de Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, The Dallas-Fort-Worth Experience. Cities, 28, 300-309.
F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., von Streng Velken, I., Audretsch, M.,
Kiron, D., & Kruschwitz, N. (2012). Sustainability nears a tip-
Hein, L., Hussain, S., Pushpam, K., McVittie, A., Portela,
ping point. Retrieved from http://c4168694.r94.cf2.rackcdn.
R., Rodriguez, L., ten Brink, P., & van Beukering, P. (2012).
com/MIT-SMR-BCG-Sustainability-Nears-a-Tipping-Point-
Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services
Winter-2012.pdf
in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 50-61.
Hammer, J. (2010). Applying triple bottom line analysis in the
Diener, E., Helliwell, J. F., & Kahneman, D. (2010). International
Portland metro region: Findings and implications of focus
differences in well-being. New York, NY: Oxford University
groups with municipal and county officials. Portland, OR:
Press.
Portland State University College of Urban and Public Affairs.
Easterlin, R. A., & Angelescu, L. (2012). Modern economic growth
Hammer, J., Allen, J., & Meier, B. (2010). Accounting for develop-
and quality of life: Cross-sectional and time series evidence. In
ment: Assessing social and triple bottom line returns of public
K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook
development investment. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of
of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 113-136). Land Policy.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer. Harji, K., & Jackson, E. T. (2012). Accelerating impact:
Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques Achievements, challenges, and what’s next in the impact invest-
& J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add ing industry. New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.
up? (pp. 1-16). London, England: Earthscan. Harper-Anderson, E. (2012). Exploring what greening the economy
Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating means for African American workers, entrepreneurs, and com-
social and financial returns. California Management Review, munities. Economic Development Quarterly, 26, 162-177.
45, 35-51. Hertin, J, Turnpenny, J., Jordan, A., Nilsson, M., Russel, D., &
Fazili, S. (2010). A role for the Feds? The opportunities and chal- Nikvist, B. (2009). Rationalizing the policy mess? Ex ante pol-
lenges in a Federal government role in measuring and defin- icy assessment and the utilization of knowledge in the policy
ing social impact in the impact investing field. Community process. Environment and Planning A, 41, 1185-1200.
Development Investment Review, 6(1), 69-72. Hopwood, A. A., Unerman, J., & Fries, J. (2010). Accounting for
Felsenstein, D. (2001). Analysing local growth promotion: Looking sustainability: Practical insights. London, England: Earthscan.
beyond employment and income counts. In D. Felsenstein & Hurwitz, J. M. (2015). Seeding growth: Maximizing the return
M. Taylor (Eds.), Promoting local growth: Process, practice on incentives. Washington, DC: International Economic
and policy (pp. 29-41). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Development Council.

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

Hammer and Pivo 11

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Metropolitan development as Roberts, B., & Cohen, M. (2002). Enhancing sustainable develop-
a complex system: A new approach to sustainability. Economic ment by triple value adding to the core business of government.
Development Quarterly, 13, 141-156. Economic Development Quarterly, 16, 127-137.
Jackson, E. T. (2013). Interrogating the theory of change: Evaluating Sacks, D., Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2010). Subjective well-
impact investing where it matters most. Journal of Sustainable being, income, economic development and growth. Cambridge,
Finance & Investment, 3, 95-110. MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from
Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., & Wood, C. (2007). Environmental http://www.nber.org/papers/w16441
impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Saha, D. (2009). Factors influencing local government sustainabil-
Impact Assessment Review, 27, 287-300. ity efforts. State and Local Government Review, 41, 39-48.
Jenkins, J. M. (2014). Early childhood development as economic Saha, D., & Paterson, R. G. (2008). Local government efforts to
development. Economic Development Quarterly, 28, 147-165. promote the “three es” of sustainable development: Survey in
Jenson, J. O., & Elle, M. (2007). Exploring the use of tools for medium to large cities in the United States. Journal of Planning
urban sustainability in European cities. Indoor and Built Education and Research, 28, 21-37.
Environment, 16, 235-247. Schutte, A. (2010). Impact with punch: The perfect is the enemy of
Jepson, E. J. (2003). The conceptual integration of planning and the good. Community Development Investment Review, 6(1),
sustainability: An investigation of planners in the United 55-56.
States. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance mea-
21, 389-410. surement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Johnson, B. J., & White, S. S. (2010). Promoting sustainability Business Ethics, 107, 239-253.
through transportation infrastructure? Innovation and inertia in Seidman, K. (2011). Prospects and practice in green economic
the Kansas City metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Planning development. Retrieved from https://www.frbatlanta.org/-/
and Development, 136, 303-313. media/Documents/news/conferences/2011/green-foundation/
KPMG International. (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate seidman-green.pdf
Responsibility Reporting 2013: Executive summary. Geneva, Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L., & Cook, S. (1976). Research methods
Switzerland: KPMG. in social relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Koven, S., & Lyons, T. (2010). Economic development: Strategies Shaffer, R., Deller, S., & Marcouiller, D. (2006). Rethinking
for state and local practice (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: community economic development. Economic Development
International City/County Management Association. Quarterly, 20, 59-74.
Krumholz, N. (1991). Equity and local economic development. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009a). Report of the
Economic Development Quarterly, 5, 291-300. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance
Martin, S., & Mayer, H. (2008). Sustainability, clusters, and and Social Progress. Retrieved from http://www.stiglitz-sen-
competitiveness: Introduction to focus section. Economic fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf
Development Quarterly, 22, 272-276. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.P. (2009b). The measurement
Miller, D., & Salkind, N. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of research of economic performance and social progress revisited:
design and social measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reflections and overview. Retrieved from http://www.stiglitz-
Musil, T. A. (2001). Impact analysis practices in economic devel- sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf http://www.
opment. Economic Development Review, 17, 111-116. stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/overview-eng.pdf
Oh, Y., Lee, I. W., & Bush, C. B. (2014). The role of dynamic Svara, J., Watt, T., & Jang, H. S. (2013). How are U.S. cities
social capital on economic development partnerships within doing sustainability? Who’s getting on the sustainability train
and across communities. Economic Development Quarterly, and why? Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and
28, 230-243. Research, 15(1), 9-44.
Opp, S., & Osgood, J. L., Jr. (2013). Local economic development Vanderleeuw, J. M., Sandovici, M. E., & Jarmon, C. A. (2011).
and the environment: Finding common ground. Boca Raton, Women city leaders and postmaterialist values: Gender differ-
FL: CRC Press. ences in economic development priorities. Journal of Women,
Osgood, J. L., Opp, S. M., & Bernotsky, R. L. (2012). Yesterday’s Politics & Policy, 32, 211-236.
gains versus today’s realities: Lessons from 10 years of Wang, X., Hawkins, C. V., Lebredo, N., & Berman, E. M. (2012).
economic development practice. Economic Development Capacity to sustain sustainability: A study of US cities. Public
Quarterly, 26, 334-350. Administration Review, 72, 841-853.
Peters, A., & Fisher, P. (2004). The failures of economic develop- Wlodarczak, D. (2012). Smart growth and urban economic devel-
ment incentives. Journal of the American Planning Association, opment: Connecting economic development and land-use plan-
70(1), 27-37. ning using the example of high-tech firms. Environment and
Portney, K. (2003). Taking sustainability seriously: Economic Planning A, 44, 1255-1269.
development, the environment, and quality of life in American Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development:
cities (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory
Reese, L., & Fasenfest, D. (1999). Critical perspectives on local and Society, 27, 151-208.
development policy evaluation. Economic Development World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987).
Quarterly, 13, 3-7. Our common future. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Reese, L. A. (2014). The alchemy of local economic development. Zeemering, E. S. (2009). What does sustainability mean to city offi-
Economic Development Quarterly, 28, 206-219. cials? Urban Affairs Review, 45, 247-273.

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016

12 Economic Development Quarterly 

Zheng, L., & Warner, M. (2010). Business incentive use among Administration. She is currently adjunct faculty at Portland State
U.S. local governments: A story of accountability and policy University and a consultant. Her research bridges sustainable develop-
learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 24, 325-336. ment theory and practice, focusing on sustainability metrics,, multi-
stakeholder processes, and sustainable economic development.
Author Biographies Gary Pivo is a faculty member at the University of Arizona and
Janet Hammer served as director of the Initiative on Triple Bottom codirects the Responsible Property Investment Center. He works in
Line Development at Portland State University and led the development the areas of responsible property investing, land use planning, and
of the Triple Bottom Line Tool for the U.S. Economic Development sustainable cities.

Downloaded from edq.sagepub.com at UNIV ARIZONA LIBRARY on November 15, 2016